The ruling was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term. The year's marquee cases involving presidential power to dealing with suspected terrorist were announced Monday, and mostly represented a loss for the Bush administration.
Tuesday's pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last. Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment. The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.
Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court's free-speech standards. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged COPA immediately on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears, and that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original.
In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld. Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced "answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality," Justice Breyer wrote. Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not. That is a tricky rule to enforce in the murky and anonymous reaches of the Internet. Most Web sites, chat rooms and other Internet venues are available to adults and minors alike, and commercial transactions do not take place face to face. The Internet also presents a difficulty in translating old rules about what children could see and what they could not.
Article comments